darth_ender

greenpenguino said:

Who would win in a fight? OOT Han Solo or Special Edition Han Solo?

Arkady said:

Hi all! I was wondering if any of you could help me with this: When I was a kid, (about nine or so, it seemed to me it was around the time Empire was released) my Mother took me shopping at the local Kmart. I found in the albums bin (yes, I know I am dating myself) a SW album that showed an artist-drawn picture of Luke against a blue background leaning out of the door of what looked like a snowspeeder. Luke had his saber (the blue one) and was cutting away at what looked like some kind of cable or connector. The impression was was that he was trying to make some kind of escape.

 

This appeared to be some kind of original SW adventure narrated by actors/actresses, and the tag line was, "Without funds, the Rebel Alliance cannot survive. So Luke and Princess Leia embark on a dangerous heist of Imperial Funds,,,,," Amazingly, I still remember that this is the exact way it was worded!

Does ANYBODY know what is? Has ANYBODY ever seen this album but me,  I KNOW that I really saw it, does anybody have any information on what this album was, and how I might get a copy of it?

Actually I do.  I even...er...obtained it because of this thread.  I just want to distribute this picture far and wide :)

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:-we may finally have a trilogy that did not disappoint the majority on most levels.  

ehem . . .

 

 ROTJ didn't disappoint me at all, but I think that most fans, especially those of the era, found it inferior to the first two films.  I love it as is, but I acknowledge it has its shortcomings.  TDKR on the other hand promises to surpass the previous two, at least if initial reviews are anything to be believed.  I hope they're right.

Probably the last movie to have the hype that The Dark Knight Rises does was The Phantom Menace, and we know what a letdown that was.  I am trying to be extremely cautious in my reading, sticking almost entirely to headlines.  I hear that Letterman ruined the ending, though I won't learn any more about it than that.  But from what I'm reading, critics who've seen advance screenings are extremely positive about the movie.  Rotten Tomatoes has it at 97% at the present, and many call it better than The Dark Knight.  Personally for me, the one to beat is Batman Begins.  Just watched them both, and I still enjoy Begins more, though Dark Knight is still an enjoyable film.  My wife's opinion of it actually improved this time, though she too prefers the first.  Anyway, I'm rambling.  My reason for starting this post was to let everyone know that so far, most critics are impressed with the movie--we may finally have a trilogy that did not disappoint the majority on most levels.   Sure, not everything pleases everyone, but it seems that nearly everyone considers all three movies to be very well done and enjoyable.  I'm so excited, if I weren't starving at this moment, I'd probably puke.

Please notify me when you do, and make sure you post it Board Game Thread ;)

I won't bore those who aren't interested, but I continued my debate of Ender vs. Bean at a site called philoticweb.com where I found one person willing to take up the darth_ender debate challenge.  You can follow that debate at this link (not to the direct post, which I don't know how to link to, but at least at the right page).

^At a mere 38...he doesn't age so beautifully.

So I completed a short story and full book.

Short story was called Investment Counselor, a brief little tale about how Ender meets Jane.  400 years after Ender's big moment, he comes into adulthood.  He remains alive through distant journeys at near lightspeed, enjoying the benefits of time compression.  As an adult, he now has to pay taxes, but the massive trust fund set up in his name has led to numerous difficulties, including someone who decides to track his past and blackmail him while he's at it.  But with the help of a special investment counselor, his finances and his history are preserved.  Simple, fun, enjoyable.  I really like Jane's character.

I read Speaker for the Dead for the first time in 12 years.  I definitely enjoyed it a lot more for various reasons.  Simply my own aging has allowed me to appreciate a slower story better.  I also have a greater appreciation for various cultures and an understanding of the issues and themes that permeate this and several other stories in the series (most notably the drive for reproduction and survival of the fittest, empathy, selflessness, and the need for communication).  I understood more basic concepts better as well, such as the scientific theories behind much of it and the Catholic/Portuguese culture of the planet.  I could understand the Portuguese fairly well, since now I speak Spanish.  Overall, a much better book for a 30 year-old than an 18 year-old.  Still, it did get a bit weird to me at times.  But all in all, a good book.  I remember enjoying the next in the series better.  We'll see if that holds up this time round.

SPOILER SECTION:

Briefly, I will say that the book is interesting from a theological perspective.  The author and I share the same religion, yet the protagonist is an atheist/humanist in an all-Catholic colony.  Card handled the characters and the beliefs well and with respect.  The rivalry between the clergy and the monastic scientists was interesting to me as well.  When I first devised my username, I decided based on my adoration of the child genius.  Now I finally can relate to the adult, the Speaker for the Dead.  The one who always tries to see the truth about a person, not just the good, not just the bad.  The one who is both logical and emotional, rational and empathetic.  The one who can bear burdens for others.  I really enjoyed this perspective of the same character, and though fictional, he is worth emulating (except that I choose to remain a Mormon ;)

Oh, so fictional characters are fair game.

Gosh, Frink and Bingo had me convinced they were really much older.  This thread just breaks my heart.

Star Trek is horrible.  It has George Takei, Federation headquarters is in San Francisco (where Sulu was born, no less), and worst of all, humpback whales!  It's worse than DisneyLand's Gay Day in the Star Trek universe!

/sarcastic homophobic rant

zombie84 said:

Also, more on topic, in response to Darth Ender's OP: does Risk have a bad rep? When I was growing up, no one really knew what it was, but people knew it was a bit nerdy. But any real nerd loved it. It's probably my favourite game. I don't think it is simplistic, as board games by their nature must be simplified to some degree for gameplay reasons; I remembered Risk being considered a thinking mans game, like chess, because of the strategy involved. I guess with stuff like Settlers of Cataan and the new "nerd chique" thing board games have evolved a bit, but that's like complaining that a film from 1957 (when Risk was invented) doesn't have the graphics (or colour!) and surround sound of Avengers. Like chess, it is sufficiently complex yet simple enough to learn that it needs no elaboration.

I too love Risk.  However, on boardgamegeek.com where all the nerds are permitted to be snobs in their own niche, Risk is considered little more than a "gateway" wargame, only to be played while engaging in other "gateway" activities *cough pot cough*.  While I exaggerate, there is a surprising hostility towards the game, and even more complex but similar games like Axis and Allies are looked down upon.  If you are a serious gamer, you won't settle for anything less than Puerto Rico, Settlers, or some other Euro game where no one really loses.  If you're going to play a wargame, you have to play something much more complex, like War of the Ring, to be cool.  I have no problem with any of these games (actually, I've never played them, but they sound cool), but when folks look down on you for being a Risk fan, it annoys me.  Your analogy about 1957 films is wonderful.

Risk has had some interesting incarnations lately that I find intriguing.  A game that largely remains faithful to the original, yet updates it a tad is Risk (revised).  It's supposedly quicker (both in pace and in termination) and a bit more modern.  I own it, but I only play the simultaneous version I continue to allude to, so I've yet to see how cool this version is.  I also hear that Risk: Legacy is fantastic, and seems to have the highest marks in the series.  I hear the OT version of Star Wars Risk is very good as well, while the PT version is not so enjoyable (cue skyjedi2005).  And a game only released in Europe is called Risk: Balance of Power, a 2 player version that seems interesting.  Sadly, I've not tried this out either.  In spite of my love for board games, I don't get to play them nearly enough.

But I do love Risk, zombie84.  It's simplistic, yes, but what I love about it is the human interaction, the promises, the lies.  This is especially potent in the Same Time Risk I keep advocating.  If you check out Risk II on BGG.com, I encourage you to download the supplied materials and try it out (see OP for links).  It's still Risk...only better!

Ten...more...days.........AAUUUUGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!

Ah, I've played Ticket to Ride once.  I remember I lost very severely, but I thoroughly enjoyed myself.  That sounds like a worthwhile site, and I'll have to visit it frequently.  The others I've not heard of.  Recommendations are always fun, as it's easier to try something out when you've heard good things and watched a bit of the fun.

Kittens in a blender sounds quite twisted, Scotty.  Perhaps when you give Kingmaker a go, you can tell us what you think.

Do you like abstract strategy games?  There is a bit of software, perhaps overpriced, but enjoyable in many ways.  It's called Zillions of Games, a gaming engine that will allow it to play nearly any abstract game.  The games itself are programed with a simple language (which is still beyond me) by various programmers.  It comes with several of its own, but I've been able to use it to play numerous chess games including Klin Zha (Klingon chess, which is surprisingly fun), Jetan (xhonzi would be proud, as it's Martian chess in the Burroughs universe), and various others.  It's useful for testing your own games, and it has respectable AI, though I'd much prefer to use it with a human opponent.

walkingdork said:

By "I mean mankind" I mean I could literally make up the dumbest story I could think of (including a dump truck with a beard) and if I has the charm and charisma I could start a religion/cult and people would believe in it just as fiercly as Christians believe in their beliefs or Muslims believe in theirs.

If I would have just left it as "these silly willies will believe in anything" I knew you would assume I meant Christians or you or Ender personally.

 I think you has lotz of charizma and you coulds totally starts your own kult.

...And my getup's cooler than Boushh

Carp!  Look what you did!  You really broke it!

http://elgoog.im/

doubleofive said:

Thanks to TableTop, Mrs. O'Five and I are getting more board games and the like.

I meant to ask: what games have you been trying out?  What have you enjoyed and what have you hated?  I always have enjoyed wargames, but I know there are plenty of other fun games out there.  I just don't get to try them out often enough.  Input from others is useful in figuring out which to pick up.

I mentioned Risk II in the first post of the thread, but I played a game on Saturday and wanted to report on it.  Here is a picture of the board for reference when discussing additional territories:

Copied from my report on boardgamegeek.com with minor changes:

I was able to play another game of RISK II this weekend, and this time to completion.  Present was my trustworthy friend Derek, who has joined every game I've played, as well as two of my nephews, Max and Phil, who love classic Risk, but had never before played a simultaneous game. Playing to 60%, the players needed a mere 28 territories of the full 48 in order to win. Even at this early cutoff, the game was already in the winner's hands before we were done before turn 3. We made it through 5 in all.

In the beginning, I was granted a rather unfair advantage. We simply distributed the cards, which left me with a surprisingly good position--I had about half of Europe and several connected territories that also led into Asia (remember, in this version connected empires also grant additional armies). The result was a significant army bonus of 7 per turn while everyone else only got 4. Derek and I admittedly had a casual relationship--we hardly had any adjacent territories and couldn't really help each other out much. On the other hand, my nephews joined forces in an inseparable bond and were determined to attack me from Asia. They did not do much to prevent a European conquest in spite of owning a few of the territories between the two of them. Phil had the best shot of preventing me from gaining the whole continent, but he also had ambitions for N. America and clashed with Derek. Between the silly Asian assault and the N. American campaign, he did not have enough forces present in Europe to defend against me, and I had all of Europe by the end of the first turn.

Turn 2 I played rather cautiously. My nephews continued to trip over each other as their territories were interspersed. Rather than consolidating a continent and separating their territories so they had clearly discernible empires, they were weakened by trying to avoid conquering each others' "throwaway" territories. Max had sizable forces in both India and Siam, and Phil had a big army in Ural and China. I was somewhat nervous that they could break through my forces and remove my European bonus. They took out most of my useless Asian territories, but I succeeded in repelling them and gained Afghanistan and India. Meanwhile, Max also slowly tried to gain Australia and Phil and Derek were going back in forth in North American and extended their battle into the South. Derek clearly had the upper hand, as his forces were far more concentrated there, but he had quite a time eradicating Phil.

By turn 3 I broke through both nephews' defenses and had them both on the run. Derek had been true to his word in spite of a couple of times where I'd been a tad more vulnerable to a backstab. I managed to take out Max's backup line in Siam and continued to spread throughout Asia.  Derek tried to help me a bit by attacking Japan through Hawaii, but he couldn't really do much near to home.  Max pressed into S. America from New Zealand to help out his brother; the Americas remained unattainable and still no one else had gained a single continent other than myself.

Turn 4 I invaded Africa, which had largely been left alone. I nearly gained the whole of Asia, and I continued my policy of slowly building up in Iceland and Svalbard for a potential N. American invasion (to ensure Derek couldn't get too big...again, only if necessary). Max finally had Australia, but Phil literally had only two territories remaining in N. America by the end of the turn. I had played a rather cautious turn because while I had large forces on all fronts, Derek and I kept our mutually respectful truce and didn't attack him on any front (by this time, most of my front lines were now facing Derek's men).

Turn 5 was the final slammer. I had to turn on Derek, but we also swallowed up my nephews. Phil was crushed in N. America and Max forced out of the South. Derek owned both continents, minus one key territory: Greenland. You see, Greenland was Phil's last stand, and while Derek attacked him there from Oiktaluk, I did too from both Iceland and Svalbard, denying Derek the potential (though never enjoyed) continental bonus and securing a powerful foothold in the continent, as well as gaining Phil's card (yes, he cashed in, though he couldn't use most of his bonus troops due to Risk II's reinforcement restrictions). I completed my Asia conquest and would have appreciated that massive boost to my forces had another turn come around. I also pushed Max and Derek's troops out of Africa, thus gaining that continent with minimal effort. I invaded Australia through Siam while Derek invaded from Argentina, and we completely annihilated Max, except for his holding in New Guinea.

The number of territories I held at the end was 28, the exact minimum for victory. My holding of three continents while Derek only had one and my superior numbers on all fronts guaranteed an ultimate victory, even if Derek put up a reasonable resistance. We decided to call it quits, justifying it by the number of territories held.

In spite of the overwhelming victory, it was a bit depressing winning so overwhelmingly. As I said, the game was in the winner's hand early on, and the last two turns were more of boring mop up action than fun (especially for my poor nephews, who were both messing around on their phones for much of the time while Derek and I pondered placement and moves). Still, I'm always glad to win, and the boys said they wanted to play me again while they're still in town. I hope we get to. I'll keep you all posted.

I hope they never get to the point that they did with Land Before Time.  There were at least a baker's dozen...and the original is still a wonderful movie...just have to pretend the rest don't exist (which is easy, since Don Bluth had nothing to do with them and the style is completely different, from what little I saw).

Great!  Just great!  Now the whole Internet's down!  That darn Doomsday virus!  I can't post anything!

We've had some typical on and off rains this monsoon, usually in the afternoon.  That is, except on the Fourth of July where it rained the entire day.  Literally five minutes before the scheduled fireworks, the rain stopped and the Independence Day festivities were able to proceed.

I didn't see Eddie Murphy anywhere!  What kind of a restoration is this?!

^ALSFRNJLOL (actual, literal, serious, for reelz, no joke laugh out loud!)

FanFiltration said:

 Officially my favorite picture of the entire thread!